New Thames Airport for London
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baltasound.
Not sure what you are on about there. A poorly researched post if ever there was one.
Fixed parliamentary terms?? What are you referring to here?
Planning permission?? The UK has a sovereign parliament (the EU not withstanding), they can do whatever they like. If you are unfamiliar with the term, look it up.
London already has 7 airports?? You really have not been listening, have you?
Why do you think that LHR is at 99.5 % capacity and STN is at 40% capacity? The airlines don't want another point to point runway/airport in the London basin. They want a European hub for international interlining and en-route interlining - they want a Heathrow Mk II, with added capacity, better transport links and better infrastructure.
And if we don't provide this capacity, Paris or Amsterdam will. This will be their gain and our loss - and a sigificant loss if the international banking system follows the Europen hub. Its amazing that sucessive goverments have bet the entire family business on the financial sector, instead of manufacturing, and then neglected to give those financial business the transport and infrastructure they need to thrive. Its is almost as if UK governments are conspiring to destroy the UK's economy.
Regards Boris, there is nothing to prevent him getting elected as an MP at the next election, and then challenging Cameron. He has identified that Cameron's primary failing is a lack of determination, and a lack of decision making. He is reckoning that people will back both him and Silver-Boris island, if nothing else becuase something will be getting done. There is nothing worse during a recession, than lethargy and a lack of ambition.
If Cameron does not respond to Boris' threats, the latter will only get emboldened and make ever greater challenges. If so, the prospect of Silver-Boris getting the go-ahead will continue to rise.
.
Not sure what you are on about there. A poorly researched post if ever there was one.
Fixed parliamentary terms?? What are you referring to here?
Planning permission?? The UK has a sovereign parliament (the EU not withstanding), they can do whatever they like. If you are unfamiliar with the term, look it up.
London already has 7 airports?? You really have not been listening, have you?
Why do you think that LHR is at 99.5 % capacity and STN is at 40% capacity? The airlines don't want another point to point runway/airport in the London basin. They want a European hub for international interlining and en-route interlining - they want a Heathrow Mk II, with added capacity, better transport links and better infrastructure.
And if we don't provide this capacity, Paris or Amsterdam will. This will be their gain and our loss - and a sigificant loss if the international banking system follows the Europen hub. Its amazing that sucessive goverments have bet the entire family business on the financial sector, instead of manufacturing, and then neglected to give those financial business the transport and infrastructure they need to thrive. Its is almost as if UK governments are conspiring to destroy the UK's economy.
Regards Boris, there is nothing to prevent him getting elected as an MP at the next election, and then challenging Cameron. He has identified that Cameron's primary failing is a lack of determination, and a lack of decision making. He is reckoning that people will back both him and Silver-Boris island, if nothing else becuase something will be getting done. There is nothing worse during a recession, than lethargy and a lack of ambition.
If Cameron does not respond to Boris' threats, the latter will only get emboldened and make ever greater challenges. If so, the prospect of Silver-Boris getting the go-ahead will continue to rise.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 16th Aug 2012 at 17:56.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, Sir. Sorry, Sir.
If you think otherwise, then please tell us why LHR is operating at 99.5% capacity and slots are selling for £zillions, when there is ample capacity and slots already available in STN.
Answer, these two airports are addressing different customers with completely different requirements. We don't need more London and S.E. capacity, we need more international capacity with direct interlining opportunities to many other places. In short, we need a new LHR that is twice the size as the old one, and with better surface communications too. Which is why the Chunnel and HS2 lines must meet at the same terminal - if they do not, it will not just be Boris who is hanging from a zip-wire.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 16th Aug 2012 at 19:51.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fixed parliamentary terms?? What are you referring to here?
The UK has a sovereign parliament (the EU not withstanding), they can do whatever they like. If you are unfamiliar with the term, look it up.
Perhaps you should look it up?
Why do you think that LHR is at 99.5 % capacity
Its amazing that sucessive goverments have bet the entire family business on the financial sector, instead of manufacturing
VC10 vs B707 / HS121 vs B727 / HS748 vs F27 / ATP vs Fokker 50 / HS146 vs The Rest
Regards Boris, there is nothing to prevent him getting elected as an MP at the next election, and then challenging Cameron.
There is nothing worse during a recession, than lethargy and a lack of ambition.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 17th Aug 2012 at 01:05.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skippy:
We now have five year fixed term Parliaments. Not sure if Mail Online's US version covered that.....
We now have five year fixed term Parliaments. Not sure if Mail Online's US version covered that.....
And you purport to live in the UK?
The Fixed Term Act does not come into force until 2015, and we are in 2012. And even when it does come into force, a new election can be called if the PM loses his/her authority or 2/3 of the Commons votes for one. Thus Boris can still agitate and cause a new election - although he is unlikely to do so as that would lose support among Conservatives. He will bide his time, and strike when Fortuna determines the time is right.
Skippy:
Yes there is, adding even more debt to our kids by spending collosal amounts of money we haven't earned.
Yes there is, adding even more debt to our kids by spending collosal amounts of money we haven't earned.
Err, you are not much good at economic either. Q.E. does not add to debt, it inflates the money supply, resulting in inflation. But the advantage of doing this, is you end up with assets that will pay for themselves and pay for that inflated money supply in future decades.
However, if you use that Q.E. money to create towns and airports that are never used (as in Spain), then it is a waste that will burden future generations. And if you use that Q.E. money to pay Banksters to waste yet more of our money, then it is also a complete waste that will burden future generations.
But if you use that Q.E. money to create the world's busiest and most profitable airport (in the Thames Estuary), then it is not a waste at all, it becomes an asset that will fund future generations for a century or more.
You are not in business, Skippy, I know from your comments. But why do you think that large corporations will often borrow money (that heinous sin) to build massive new factories? Do you think that doing so will immediately bankrupt any company?? What do you think, eh? Why do you think that the world's most successful companies have all borrowed money at some point in time?
Borrowing only leads to ruin when you spend that money on the current account (on wages and administration costs etc), just as the financially irresponsible New Labour government did for the UK during the naughties. That will bankrupt any company or nation. But if borrowing is used on capital infrastructure, and that infrastructure is successful, then the company/nation will likewise be successful. Its basic economics, although I doubt you will understand.
Skippy:
You are suggesting we give Boris control of Trident silverstrata. Really?
You are suggesting we give Boris control of Trident silverstrata. Really?
I would rather we had Cincinnatus fighting our corner, than an idealistic Tele-tubby with a turbine on his green house.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 17th Aug 2012 at 08:36.
Paxing All Over The World
In this announcement, BBC News - Virgin Atlantic to fly between Heathrow and Manchester
there is the info:
Yes, LHR is where it's at and that's where it's going to stay!
there is the info:
Virgin says that 65% of people who fly from Manchester to London then connect on to another long-haul flight
Virgin says that 65% of people who fly from Manchester to London then connect on to another long-haul flight
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the BBC is notoriously London-centric - but does Manchester to London really count as long-haul ?
London-centric is such a boring term. The UK as a whole is mono-centric, and London just happens to account for the mono-bit. If we were having this debate in duo-centric Spain or Italy, then we could complain about a Madrid-centric or Rome-centric bias. Any claim of such bias is irrelevant in the UK.
Virgin says that 65% of people who fly from Manchester to London then connect on to another long-haul flight
Nearly every major trading nation has a decent capital airport and some decent TGV lines that run from it, except for the UK.
In fact, well planned major air hub to high speed rail (HSR) links are rare (the TGV nomenclature is only relevant to the French TGV and variants, it is not an accepted term for such systems in general).
The only airports which could truly claim to interchange NETWORKS of air AND HSR are CDG and FRA.
Can London join them? As it stands, not looking likely - HS2 would only have a branch into LHR, and the cost of this at £4.2bn for an hourly service into T5 only looks astranomical. Meanwhile, the HS2 terminus will be welded into a stub at Euston long before the dredgers are out to create Boris Island.
3. The enormous indriect subsidy from the taxpayer which the likes of BAA and the airlines are recieving, so no, it will not be wholly private money being used to build a new runway at Heathrow.
Correct me if this is wrong, but arent large infrastructure plans now dealt with by the nationally significant infrastructure projects procedure? AFAIK this speeds up the planning procedure to avoid planning inquiry like that of Heathrow-5 and others dragging on forever. AFAIK rail infrastructure improvements are also dealt with this way.
HS2 has already had one judicial review over the consultation. If they start adding bits (e.g. a Ph1 link to Derby), they will no doubt be challenged too, even though, imho, these extras would go some way to making the project justifiable.
HS2 will go through a "hybrid bill", a process used when a commercial project needs the support of parliament.
He (Boris) will bide his time, and strike when Fortuna determines the time is right.
But if you use that Q.E. money to create the world's busiest and most profitable airport (in the Thames Estuary), then it is not a waste at all, it becomes an asset that will fund future generations for a century or more.
Naturally, LHR x 3 will be even harder to close than LHR x 2, and the commercial case now rests on 75% of investment being made to replace capacity instead of 67%.
Yet, surprise surprise - Silver still fails to answer calls to explain what the PSC would be to use this gargantuan white elephant-on-sea.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR closure
Forget about LHR closing, whether with 2 rwys or 3, or even 4. It is not going to happen. The rebuilding and "toastracking" of LHR terminals, for example, is investment costing billions, that level of investment would not take place at an airport that will be closed or downsized within the next 30 years (because of Fantasy Island). Would therefore expect that Heathrow expansion is very much on the cards. How long it takes for Cameron to grow a pair will determine the timescale.
Who pays for Fantasy Island and how are the carriers persuaded to use it?
It's not just dear old Silver who won't answer the questions, none of the advocates of Fantasy Island, from Boris downwards refuse to do so.
This eliminates the entire credibility of the project.
Didn't the govt. prattle on about "no new rwys in the south east"? If so, and if that means not having 2 more at LHR, it also means not having any at Fantasy Island.
We need to ignore all those wonderful images of what Fantasy Island might look like, the only realistic one is an picture of white elephants in a formation spelling out three little letters: Y M Q.
Who pays for Fantasy Island and how are the carriers persuaded to use it?
It's not just dear old Silver who won't answer the questions, none of the advocates of Fantasy Island, from Boris downwards refuse to do so.
This eliminates the entire credibility of the project.
Didn't the govt. prattle on about "no new rwys in the south east"? If so, and if that means not having 2 more at LHR, it also means not having any at Fantasy Island.
We need to ignore all those wonderful images of what Fantasy Island might look like, the only realistic one is an picture of white elephants in a formation spelling out three little letters: Y M Q.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 1st Sep 2012 at 01:16.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't the govt. prattle on about "no new rwys in the south east"?
We need to ignore all those wonderful images of what Fantasy Island might look like, the only realistic one is an picture of white elephants in a formation spelling out three little letters: Y M Q.
Maybe with a few sticks of rock to represent all the piles that would have to be driven into the estuary just to create the foundations for this fantasy.
Last edited by jabird; 1st Sep 2012 at 01:16.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Yes they did, but if you float an island airport somewhere off the coast of Kent and it ends up half way towards Holland, then it is no longer in the southeast!"
Oh really ha ha! pedants corner! but you're probably right, can see them wriggling out of the commitment this way.
Oh really ha ha! pedants corner! but you're probably right, can see them wriggling out of the commitment this way.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
More significant movements. It looks like they are now proposing a big new airport to the northwest of London. While this is an ideal position for an airport, I cannot see them overcoming the noise and pollution problem of dropping a thunking great airport on the Tory Shires.
Nice idea, but I cannot see it happening. this was the whole point of a move to the Thames, because most of the noise problem is sorted, and the Thames is much closer to NW Europe for TGV travel to Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris.
Plans for four-runway airport near Heathrow claimed to be underway | Mail Online
Is this a spoiler, perhaps? Get the proposal deliberately turned down, and then say, well damn you, we will put it in the Thames Estuary instead??
But it does demonstrate that a new airport is in the pipeline, as I suspected. This is a part of the softening-up process (like we saw recently with the imminent Israeli bombing of Iran).
So it is all systems go. Which of you will have to move to Essex eh? You will have to buy a Ford and get the other half to dye her hair blond....
.
More significant movements. It looks like they are now proposing a big new airport to the northwest of London. While this is an ideal position for an airport, I cannot see them overcoming the noise and pollution problem of dropping a thunking great airport on the Tory Shires.
Nice idea, but I cannot see it happening. this was the whole point of a move to the Thames, because most of the noise problem is sorted, and the Thames is much closer to NW Europe for TGV travel to Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris.
Plans for four-runway airport near Heathrow claimed to be underway | Mail Online
Is this a spoiler, perhaps? Get the proposal deliberately turned down, and then say, well damn you, we will put it in the Thames Estuary instead??
But it does demonstrate that a new airport is in the pipeline, as I suspected. This is a part of the softening-up process (like we saw recently with the imminent Israeli bombing of Iran).
So it is all systems go. Which of you will have to move to Essex eh? You will have to buy a Ford and get the other half to dye her hair blond....
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 3rd Sep 2012 at 16:39.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird.
Except that if it was going to be the world's most profitable airport, investors would be queuing up to develop it, and this whole thread would be a side show.
Except that if it was going to be the world's most profitable airport, investors would be queuing up to develop it, and this whole thread would be a side show.
C'mon Jabird, you know that companies only look 5 years ahead. This is a 50 year commitment.
Besides, there is probably not a company or consortium in the world that could stump up £50 billion on a project, that will have no returns for nearly 10 years.
This is a government-led project, or nothing happens. But it is the nation that will reap the rewards, so it only right that the government leads the way.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 3rd Sep 2012 at 16:45.
Plans for four-runway airport near Heathrow claimed to be underway | Mail Online
Last edited by DaveReidUK; 3rd Sep 2012 at 18:04.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a government-led project, or nothing happens.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this a spoiler, perhaps? Get the proposal deliberately turned down, and then say, well damn you, we will put it in the Thames Estuary instead??
+Fantasy Boris Island
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird.
So if it is government led, how can it promise to be so profitable at the same time? Either or on this one please Silver!
So if it is government led, how can it promise to be so profitable at the same time? Either or on this one please Silver!
A government does not need a project to be 'profitable' in the same way as a company does.
When constructing a huge project, a government gets tax receipts on salaries, lower unemployment costs, corporation taxes from profitable companies, plus an economy that is no longer in recession - which means lower government borrowing costs.
In addition, when looking long term, what do you mean by 'profitable'? Would we be better off without some of those great Victorian constructions that were dubiously economic to start with? Did the Saltash, Clifton and Minai bridges not prove their worth in the end? Were the Great Western and South Devon lines not a national asset in the end? Would we be better off if these magnificent structures were never built?
.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all those great Victorian infrastructure projects lost money for their investors
Canary Wharf was the same - the original investors were burned and the people who picked up the pieces made the cash
Canary Wharf was the same - the original investors were burned and the people who picked up the pieces made the cash
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver,
You are ducking the issue. I asked you where you stood on profitability. Either you saw this as a government project, in which case profit was not a problem, or you stood by your claim that this would be the "most profitable airport in the world".
Clearly, you have retracted the latter and gone with the former. That is fine, but the examples you gave were of privately funded projects which lost money for their investors, hence you have just further trashed the latter point.
You appear to have confused the airport being the largest in the world with it being the most profitable. The two are very different concepts. Small is often beautiful!
You are ducking the issue. I asked you where you stood on profitability. Either you saw this as a government project, in which case profit was not a problem, or you stood by your claim that this would be the "most profitable airport in the world".
Clearly, you have retracted the latter and gone with the former. That is fine, but the examples you gave were of privately funded projects which lost money for their investors, hence you have just further trashed the latter point.
You appear to have confused the airport being the largest in the world with it being the most profitable. The two are very different concepts. Small is often beautiful!